2/9: Terrible MSNBC gaffe

In what must be one of the biggest gaffes in cable news history, MSNBC misspelled Mr. Niger Innis' name in their on-air graphics.

I should expect that somebody got fired over this one, which had MSNBC profusely apologizing of course. The fascinating aspect of this, to me, is that someone got a screen capture at all. People aren't exactly Tivo-ing 24-hour news channels. This capture was from a TV site that I enjoy, TV Barn, who in turn got it from a site that reports on local TV news.

Man. That's good Saturday morning humor. :)

That is pretty bad though. They don't generally misspell any names, really. Just so happens that they fudge it when the dude's first name is Niger... wow.

Obviously the webmaster of Time Canada is now out of his <b>second</b> job in 2 months... :)

Wasn't it Joe DiMaggio that they accidentally posted died a while back? (before he actually died, of course) I remember the crawler at the bottom of the screen came across and everyone was shocked, especially Joe (assuming it <i>was</i> him).
I'll see if I can dig up a link.

Let's presume that Niger has heard that one before. For all we know, he's got buddies that call him that all the time.

We all know that the hip hop culture has adopted the N word in a completely different context, often as a friendly term of endearment.

Harvard Law Professor, Randall Kennedy, has recently written a book on this subject.



Of course, it would be a major controversy if such a book were written by a white linguist. Even Randall Kennedy, a black author, is getting some criticism for use of the word. He's also getting some praise for writing this book.

His point, essentially, is that what's important is the meaning ascribed to the use of the word.

Language evolves. Right now, we are living in a time of transition of meaning of the word nigger.

Color me white but how do you pronouce out loud (as opposed to on the internet) the name Niger? :confused: I guess it would be the same as the country.

I agree with Nic's summary of Kennedy's book. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word, only the meaning given to it. To me, all that nigger means is a person who has dark skin. And what's wrong with that. I personally don't use the word in everyday language because I theoretically don't believe that skin color makes any difference in life.

And if you accept what I say, then did the graphics guy screw up semantically? [let the flames begin, I don't care, it's only a word]

There is no nigger on the net.

Registrant:
NAACP (NIGGER4-DOM)
4805 MT. HOPE DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21215
US

Domain Name: NIGGER.COM

Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Hawley, Tammy (TH1189)
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215-9167
410-486-9167

It's too bad for Randall Kennedy, that he didn't have that domain name for his book.

Registrant:
NAACP (NIGGER2-DOM)
4805 MT. HOPE DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21215
US

Domain Name: NIGGER.NET

Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Hawley, Tammy (TH1189)
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215-9167
410-486-9167

Registrant:
NAACP (NIGGER3-DOM)
4805 MT. HOPE DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21215
US

Domain Name: NIGGER.ORG

Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Hawley, Tammy (TH1189)
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215-9167
410-486-9167

www.niggerjoke.com :eek:

Originally posted by Slight
Color me white but how do you pronouce out loud (as opposed to on the internet) the name Niger? :confused: I guess it would be the same as the country.

It's a long I and a J sound instead of G. Assuming that's how he likes to say it.

Kinda like Nigel, but with an R on the end instead.

Nigeria used to be called "Niger"....

"There was a young lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the tiger"


Of course, this stretches a bit on the "hard g"-"soft g" axis...

In 1967, 143 place names containing the word nigger were changed to Negro by order of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.

Next to go ... Squaw Valley and Cripple Creek?

It may be better to change the import of words such as nigger, squaw, queer and heeb to align with changing norms.

Gay Pride has advanced to the level of acceptance that we have Queer as Folk on TV.

Will the influence of hip hop culture, BET, rap music lyrics and song titles lead to the acceptablity of nigger music groups and television shows in the future?

NIGGA Never Ignorant Getting Goals Accomplished (Tupac Shakur)

Recently, a jewish publisher in NYC launched Heeb magazine, The New Jew Review.

The times they are a changin'.

We'll know that prejudice has been eliminated when you don't have to be black to say nigger, gay to say queer, and jewish to say heeb.

And that our minds are truly open when we can handle the really filthy words.

All I can think of is what this guy must have gone through as a kid with that name! I assume he was born in America. WTF were his parents thinking to lay that moniker on him?

- NBN

Actually, it may have been prophetic that his parents hung Niger with this epithet. He wears it well. I think he'll be able to handle this faux pas by MSNBC. He's even been a guest on Politically Incorrect.

Advice to The President of the United States on matters of Race

i never did have to be "gay to say queer."

because that's not what it means.

and i still don't have a problem saying it around homosexuals, because it still doesn't mean "homosexual." and if they ever have a problem with me saying it around them, they'll get bitched at.

My, that's a queer interpretation. ;)

I find it really queer how a woman who's a bitch is considered to be spiteful or overbearing, whereas a man who's a bitch is considered to be weak or contemptible. :)

Not really. It's slang, and it does not mean "homosexual" any more than "jewish" means "money squandering". Just because some people use it that way does not mean that its definition is "homosexual".

You know, a lot of people misuse the word "ignorant". They go "my, that's ignorant" or "Quit being ignorant". You've heard it, I'm sure. What does the word mean? Unaware. Uninformed. Not erudite. Yet people toss it around as an insult, not at all meaning "My, what an un-learned fellow."

That doesn't mean that the definition has changed - it means that the one who uses it improperly is, well, <b>ignorant</b>.

For the record, I don't appreciate the hijacking of words such as queer, gay, fag, etc. Homosexual females have "lesbian" - why do homosexual males get to steal regular words? Why do people continue to support the misuse of these words?

Sounds ignorant to me. :)

It is senseless to argue that slang doesn't have meanings generally understood in the vernacular.

slang Pronunciation Key (slng) n.

A kind of language occurring chiefly in casual and playful speech, made up typically of short-lived coinages and figures of speech that are deliberately used in place of standard terms for added raciness, humor, irreverence, or other effect.

Lots of gay, lesbian and other sexual minorities have embraced the term "queer" for their *own* use, partly to rob it of it's negative power. Sorry if you straight people don't like it.

*Who* is speaking is inevitably a vital part of the context in which speech is understood.Remeber the scene in "Rush Hour" where Jackie Chan greets the bartender with the same phrase he's just heard his black partner use: "Whassup, my nigger?". Membership in an oppressed minority profoundly shapes the context of discourse; having words insiders can use without giving offense that are off-limits to outsiders is a powerful way of expressing solidarity.

To whine about words being "hijacked" is just plain silly. Will you stand there like King Canute ordering back the sea proclaiming "Queer doesn't mean homosexual"? "Nice" didn't used to mean "pleasing", either. Words grow meanings like ships grow barnacles, and *all* the users of a language participate in the process that gives meaning to words.

Lately, queer folks have had a heavy influence on the words used to describe themselves, because for the most part they're the ones doing the talking--something that's been long overdue. It's only now that we've started asserting some influence and control (instead of cowering in the closet) that we start hearing complaints from straight people about how "their" words have been stolen.

They were perfectly happy with "faggot" and "bulldyke" when they thought they were the only ones in control. Language is a powerful tool of opression...or liberation. As Humpty-Dumpty said to Alice on the subject: "The question is: which is to be the master".

Straight people complaining about homosexuals using words such as queer describing themselves is patently absurd. Once again, The Simpsons parodied it best:

John: Queer?
Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people
using that word. That's our word for making fun of you!
We need it!! Well I'm taking back our word, and I'm
taking back my son!

-- 4F11, Homer's Phobia


That's what I was remembered of when Dhamsaic wrote...

> For the record, I don't appreciate the hijacking of words such
> as queer, gay, fag, etc.

Which was either a very fine use of irony, or a Homerism. What do you have your money on? ;-)


X.

It's either a Homerism or he's being facetious, not ironic.

It would be ironic if he were queer and said that.

Originally posted by Nic Name
It's either a Homerism or he's being facetious, not ironic.

Well, you guys are going to have to carry the ball on this one--he said in another thread he was putting me on his ignore list. For my money it's a pure homerism on both their parts.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Not really. It's slang, and it does not mean "homosexual" any more than "jewish" means "money squandering".

I don't know any use of "jewish" that ever implied "money squandering". I wonder if dham actually meant some other word than "squander".

:rolleyes: Maggie i think your intentionally misreading what dham is saying, he's complaining about the hijacking of these words from their origional meanings, not from thier bigoted corruptions.

Originally posted by dhamsaic
For the record, I don't appreciate the hijacking of words ...

Isn't that an incorrect use of the word appreciate and a hijacking of the word hijacking?

Not to be skeptical or anything, but did this really happen, or was that "screenshot" doctored up? I haven't seen anything about this in the weekend Philadelphia Inquirers or New York Times and, while I might have missed it, and it wouldn't necessarily be front page news, I'm kind of surprised such a gaffe would pass without mention from someone else in the press.

Oh it happened all right...

As I expected, Innis handled the gaffe with good humor.

``Oh, God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something,'' Innis replied. ``Media bias continues. Just kidding. It's not the first time it's happened, but hopefully it's the last.''

...we start hearing complaints from straight people about how "their" words have been stolen...

i am a straight person. i do not think that the word "queer" is my word. or a "straight person word." it's everyone's word, as everyone is free to speak the english language. however it bothers me that when i am around homosexuals, they gawk if i use the word "queer" in its actual context. as if it's horrible of me to say "and how queer is it that john would feel that way, seeing as..." or something of the sort. it's not like i was calling a homosexual a queer to be insulting, or consider myself one of the "insiders." if they want to use the word to describe themselves, that's A-ok with me. however, i have the exact same right to use it the way it was originally intended to be used. and in my opinion, it's really stupid to get pissed off at someone for using a perfectly fine word in the way it was intended to be used.

I don't know any use of "jewish" that ever implied "money squandering".

i do. infact, i know a guy whose own mother told him "you're just like your father, you're such a jew." to imply that she didn't like what he was doing with his money. and i've heard it many times.

That's what I was remembered of when Dhamsaic wrote...

> For the record, I don't appreciate the hijacking of words such
> as queer, gay, fag, etc.

Which was either a very fine use of irony, or a Homerism. What do you have your money on?

maybe he just doesn't like feeling like he can't utter those words around homosexuals. maybe he'd rather just use those words how they're meant to be used.

Originally posted by jeni

i do. infact, i know a guy whose own mother told him "you're just like your father, you're such a jew." to imply that she didn't like what he was doing with his money. and i've heard it many times.

The stereotype of jews that *I'm* familiar with is one of parsimony, not squandering (which means to spend lavishly). "He jewed me down." around here means "He drove a tough bargain, demanding my lowest price."

Your friend's mother may not have *liked* what he was doing with his money, but I really doubt that "squandering" was the issue. Were any of the people involved in this story in fact Jewish?

yes. the guy is "half-jewish", i will say. his father is jewish.

i know what "squander" means.

Originally posted by jeni

maybe he'd rather just use those words how they're meant to be used.

There's a world of difference between "how they're meant to be used" and "how they were formerly used".

"Queer" simply meaning "odd" is so unusual now as to almost constitute an archaic usage in everyday speech. If it hadn't been used as a derogatory term for homosexuals, it might still be in use with it's former meaning. Now it's so loaded with connotations in modern daily speech that the old meaning is no longer available, unless you're clearly speaking an archaic voice: "Zounds, what a queer thing is this!"

"NIce" used to mean foolish, simple, silly, effeminate, trivial, overscrupulous, delicate, refined or dainty. In other usage it meant "apprehending slight differences or delicate distinctions". But if you say it today, it means pleasing, agreeable, satisfying or delightful. If you say somone is "nice", they'll take it as a compliment. If you use the phrase "that's a nice distinction", you're hinting that a former meaning is intended.

What if somone you'd callled "nice" bristled that you'd impugned his masculinity? After all, by your lights above, that's "how the word is meant to be used".

Originally posted by jeni
yes. the guy is "half-jewish", i will say. his father is jewish.
i know what "squander" means.

So by "you're such a jew" did you think his mother meant that he was squandering his money?

(I"m desparately trying to avoid a pun about "The Squandering Jew" at this point.)

Originally posted by jaguar
:rolleyes: Maggie i think your intentionally misreading what dham is saying, he's complaining about the hijacking of these words from their origional meanings, not from thier bigoted corruptions.

Well, you can think what you like, of course. The original complaint was not being able to use the words around queer folks for fear they'd take it personally...or conversly insiting on the right to say whatever you like even when you *know* it's likely to be misunderstood, and then blaming your listener for the resulting confusion. Whatever the case, slang continuously assigns new meanings to old words. Probably better get used to it.
Don't think of it as hijacking, think of it as "functional overloading". :-)

Originally posted by Nic Name
Isn't that an incorrect use of the word appreciate and a hijacking of the word hijacking?

No, it's not.

I'm not going to answer the second part, because you used the word in the same way I did.

Hey, dham', you just made post 5000 in IotD.

A milestone, surely. Congrat's...

- NBN

speaking an archaic voice: "Zounds, what a queer thing is this!"

or, unless i was using it to mean odd, like i do. it's not such an uncommon thing to use the word "queer" to mean "odd." really. also, by "the way they were meant" i mean their dictionary definitions, which is what i generally go by.

maggie: yes, i am positive that she meant it in such a way as to suggest that he was squandering his money.

insiting on the right to say whatever you like even when you *know* it's likely to be misunderstood, and then blaming your listener for the resulting confusion.

if this is in reference to what i said...

i don't expect it to be misunderstood when i say "queer" around homosexuals. i just think it's stupid that it has been. i don't expect them to assume that it is wrong of me to use such a word in a normal sentence. i don't give a shit if it insults them, because "queer" does not mean "homosexual." and like i have said, if they make a big deal about it i won't apologize for speaking properly. i will blame the listeners for the resulting confusion, because they should know that "queer" originally means "odd" before they use it in any other context. it's really not that hard to pick up a dictionary and look the damned word up.

i understand that not all words are used how the dictionary states they are to be used. we use the word "cool" to describe things that we think are agreeable. that's slang, and that's fine. i think, though, that it is silly for a group of people to get riled up about the use of a certain word that EVERYONE is free to use. the word queer has been adapted. it's not as though i am using it to insult them. my point was that if i want to use a word to describe a situation, someone else should not think that it can only be used to describe a person. that's basically it. i don't mind if people use the word "queer" to describe their sexual preference, really. i couldn't care less. when they tell me that i cannot use it the way it's written out in the dictionary, though, is when it bothers me.

Originally posted by jeni


or, unless i was using it to mean odd, like i do. it's not such an uncommon thing to use the word "queer" to mean "odd." really....yes, i am positive that she meant it in such a way as to suggest that he was squandering his money.

*shrug* Must be some *massive* cultural differences involved, then.

Certainly "You're such a jew, spending your money so freely." sounds to me like it came from some other planet .

But I will acknowlege hearing friends from more southern latitudes (Richmond? Raleigh?) use "queer" to mean "odd" more often. It *will* get you a "queer" look the first time you use it around a Yankee.

But being squarely in the middle of the Bos-Wash axis, up here it's a dead usage...and confusing things further, amongst younger folks up here we sometimes hear "Oh, that just so *gay*!" intended to mean "That is oddly stupid.", which just about brings the whole excursion full-circle.....making current usage of "gay" almost match what you mean when you say "queer".

Originally posted by jeni
i don't give a shit if it insults them, because "queer" does not mean "homosexual."

Pardon me, but yes, it does. See:
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

to me, maggie. i don't use those words as slang. and i'm from carroll county, maryland. born in DC.

how about the verb "gyp" - ever hear that one? bad racial usage.

My favorite is "niggardly". Remember a few years ago... when some poor (white) guy on the DC city council used the word and hilarity ensued?

&lt;beavis&gt; Heh heh... he said niggardly... heh &lt;/beavis&gt;

Originally posted by jeni
to me, maggie....

The only time you need be concerened only with what words mean to you is when you're talking to yourself.

Lexicographers tell us that their work is descriptive rather than prescriptive. I pointed you to a dictionary entry that explains how the word is used by many people today; and you're free to ignore that, of course. But you're not entitled to (in your own words) "bitch" about it if confusion or misunderstanding ensues.

Orwell wrote volumes on the political power of language. I get the feeling that your position is one of politics rather than semantics or diction.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy
My favorite is "niggardly". Remember a few years ago... when some poor (white) guy on the DC city council used the word and hilarity ensued?

Yeah, that was a mess. The word in fact is not at all derrived from the same roots as "nigger"...it's as least as old a Chaucer. But to use it in the context of DC politics is just plain stupid, it's *asking* for trouble.

Originally posted by MaggieL
The word in fact is not at all derrived from the same roots as "nigger"...it's as least as old a Chaucer.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But to use it in the context of DC politics is just plain stupid, it's *asking* for trouble.

Why?

I don't think gays ever decided as a group to co-opt words like gay or queer.

These were given to us by the straight world, for whatever reason. My guesses:

gay - overtly happy? Seems apt, most gays don't share the cares of the straight world.

queer - oddly different? Same, the straight world sees us and goes "..the heck?" they don't get it, so we seem strange indeed.

fag - Flaming? I think this predates my time, but there are (or were) some gays that dress flamboyantly, in costumes that would put a Vegas show to shame. For the record, I'd say 95% of gays dress so normally that they blend in with everyone else.

Any of these could be derogatory or not, depending on the speaker. I don't know who had the guts to do "Queer as folk" but that show is the coolest thing I've seen on TV in years. The level of production is awesome. Hats off to Showtime for that one.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Why?

Because Maggie said so.

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Because Maggie said so.

No, because race is a constant issue in DC city politics, and lots of people don't know there's no actual connection between "nigger" and "nigardly" *Chaucer* would have understood that, but I'll bet you the average DC resident doesn't.

Originally posted by Joe
I don't think gays ever decided as a group to co-opt words like gay or queer.

You must have missed that meeting. :-)

Originally posted by MaggieL
but I'll bet you the average DC resident doesn't.

Makes the average resident of DC seem a bit thick, doesn't it?

"My goodness, Gramma... what big, patronizing ideas you have!"
"The better to oppress you with, my dear!"

So... let me get this straight... not only are we not supposed to refrain from using words that have a genuinely offensive/pejorative/insulting meaning for fear of offending certain minority groups, but now we must also refrain from using their homophones for fear of offending stupid people? Yikes! When did morons become a minority group?

When did morons become a minority group?

I wish.......

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Because Maggie said so.

Is there any reason you need to be so confrontational? Maybe you want to answer to Maggie's actual points, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks? (I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting)

About the actual reason 'why' it's stupid for that politician to use the word 'niggardly' the way he did:
It's fairly obvious why: if you are surrounded by people who will - mistakenly - get offended by something, and you knowingly say something that will offend them, you are quite stupid.

Yes, you read that right. You are stupid. They may be dumb and uneducated for not knowing the etymological differences between 'nigger' and 'niggardly', but as an educated man, well-versed in local and national politics, you need to be aware of how those people will react. Why? Because it's your job.

To sum up:

1. They are wrong.
2. You are right.
3. You know that even though they're wrong, you doing something right will cause a shitstorm.
4. Causing that shitstorm has no deeper moral cause or value. You aren't defending human or civil rights or saving any whales by doing that 'right' thing. You have nothing to win by using the word 'niggardly'.
5. You do it anyway.
6. You are stupid.


Sure, an overly sensitive approach to political correctness isn't really what your founding fathers were fighting for; but in the end, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

It's a bit like walking into a group of fanatical, heavily-armed right-wing Christian militia members, telling them that they are intolerant and dangerous.

You might be right.

They may be wrong.

But you'd still be stupid.

And that's what Maggie was talking about. (I think. Maggie?)

X.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Makes the average resident of DC seem a bit thick, doesn't it?

Bluntly, yes. Especially holdovers from the Marion Berry administration, who were the people he made the comment to.

Look...when an official of a large East Coast city speaks , he'd better be aware of who his audience is, and think about how he sounds to them. This guy was (and still is, he got his job back when the uproar died down) director of the Public Advocate office. He's a *politician*, fercrissakes.

It was a *dumb* move. There's any number of archaic words he could have used to express the same idea (although "squandering" isn't one of them) and he decided to use that one. If he didn't know it would cause trouble, he certainly should have.

I'm not saying he should be *prohibited* from using the word, but that he should think a moment and realize that it's ripe to be misunderstood.

Oh, by the way...he's gay. :-)

Originally posted by Xugumad


Is there any reason you need to be so confrontational?

Probably because I was raised an angry young man after being molested by your father when I was five.

Maybe you want to answer to Maggie's actual points, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

I have Maggie on my ignore list because I find her frustrating to debate with, even though I agree with her more often than not. Therefore, I do not read Maggie's actual points - except when they are quoted. I'll respond, how I see fit, to what I see. If you don't like that, maybe you should consider putting me on your ignore list. It's quick, easy and will save you time in the future.

(I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting)

Well I'll refer to them anyway, even though it was more some <b>bold text</b> and not at all resembling a "scream". You made a comment out of ignorance and I told you to, in your ignorance, fuck off.

I think I'll put you on my ignore list too. Your idiotic drivel always manages to go on for close to a page length; my browsing experience will be much greater with a little "This person is on your Ignore List" message instead.

I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting

oops, just did.

Originally posted by Xugumad

And that's what Maggie was talking about. (I think. Maggie?)

That's the major drift. I don't think for a minute the guy was a racist. But he *was* guilty of speaking without thinking. As a political appointeee, it's not in his (or his boss's) interest to be pissing off the citizens for no particular good reason, and that's exactly what he did.

As for dham's sticking his finger in his ears and singing "la, la la, I can't hear you!", I think his browsing experience might be maximized by surfing to file:///dev/null, where he'll never read anything that bugs him, even if he does agree with it more often than not.

Originally posted by MaggieL

As for dham's sticking his finger in his ears and singing "la, la la, I can't hear you!", I think his browsing experience might be maximized by surfing to file:///dev/null, where he'll never read anything that bugs him, even if he does agree with it more often than not.

It's actually very funny to read his previous posting; not only does he completely ignore what I said (in order to resort to some more personal attacks), but he misattributes who he told to 'Fuck off'. I guess it's easy to forget who you've insulted and then added to your ignore list.

Really, it's the oldest trick in the troll book from the BBS/Usenet days: insult someone, then killfile them and tell everybody in a smug tone of voice how you have ignored them, and how you've seized the moral high ground.

Then there's of course the 'amusing' crack about having been abused by my father. The sheer stupidity of that comment aside, I guess he doesn't live in a country where <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,224326-412,00.shtml"> lynch mobs</a> run through the streets murdering pedophiles.

His points were also entertaining in themselves: he will ignore you because he agrees with what you say yet finds you frustrating to argue with. Which is why he threw a profanity-laden fit over in the thread regarding drugs and alcohol.

It's just sad to see the mental maturity of a twelve-year old express itself in such aggression. Oh well. I guess there's always his 'weblog' where he posts about how pimped his many computers are, and how ordering pizza is great, and how he likes his ass to be clean. (no, really)

Luckily, he can't read any of this, though, otherwise I'd ask him why he again completely ignored the refutation of his points, just to go on about Maggie, and about how long my postings are.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I guess he's the 'see no evil' monkey.


X.

PS: I am actually sorry this degenerated into a flame. (and I'm addressing this specifically at Tony. I just get frustrated at snotty kids too easily, I guess.)

i think maybe david just doesn't want to waste his time trying to explain his points repeatedly to people who don't understand, or aren't willing to at least acknowledge those points. reason being, said people seem to think they are right about everything, and will not change their minds about anything, no matter what evidence or thought is put into the opposing argument.

his 'weblog' where he posts about how pimped his many computers are, and how ordering pizza is great, and how he likes his ass to be clean.

and you posted this because...? you are making a reference to something that is totally irrelevant, in the hopes of making him somehow look silly. you are no better than you say he is in those regards, then.

Which is why he threw a profanity-laden fit...

i know this because i have known dave for 19 years; he uses profanity to emphasize things. as do i. as do millions of other people. if you can't understand why someone would say "that is wholly fucking irrelevant", maybe you ought to familiarlize yourself with that person before you make comments.

i personally think it's a waste of time to sit here and quibble back and forth about someone. you don't like them for certain reasons, that's fine. but to actually drag a thread completely off topic because you have more fun picking at insignificant details is lame.

Originally posted by jeni
i personally think it's a waste of time to sit here and quibble back and forth about someone. you don't like them for certain reasons, that's fine. but to actually drag a thread completely off topic because you have more fun picking at insignificant details is lame.

And you posted this because.......?

because rather than make personal attacks towards others, i would try to stay somewhat on topic.

Originally posted by jeni
i think maybe david just doesn't want to waste his time trying to explain his points repeatedly to people who don't understand, or aren't willing to at least acknowledge those points...

Not every collection of words in a row will be recognized by everyone as constituting "points" deserving of agreement, recognition or even acknowlegement. Simply because the *speaker* feels they have a point doesn't gaurantee either rebuttal or acknowlegement from the person addressed, or anybody else on-thread, for that matter.

When you find yourself explaining a point repeatedly, there are a number of possible reasons other than your audience "doesn't understand" or "isn't willing to acknowlege" you. You also may not in fact *have* a cogent point, or you may have one but be failing to convey it effectively. That's just the way things work in a forum like this. Certainly jumping up and down (even typographically) spouting profanity is unlikely to to be considered a clever forensic maneuver by most readers. Profanity *can* sometimes be used effectively for emphasis. Used constantly, it loses that effectiveness, and becomes simply abuse. (And "I've killfiled you, neener, neener, neener" is another move likely to be seen as a tantrum rather than effective argumentation.)

Originally posted by Xugumad
It's actually very funny to read his previous posting; not only does he completely ignore what I said (in order to resort to some more personal attacks), but he misattributes who he told to 'Fuck off'. I guess it's easy to forget who you've insulted and then added to your ignore list.

You're right, I did get mixed up. Refer to this post

Really, it's the oldest trick in the troll book from the BBS/Usenet days: insult someone, then killfile them and tell everybody in a smug tone of voice how you have ignored them, and how you've seized the moral high ground.

That's great. I also see it as (dun dun dun!) <b>wholly fucking irrelevant</b> (ain't that a humdinger!), since this isn't a BBS or Usenet, I wasn't trolling until my previous post, and I have <b>never</b> claimed to have seized the moral ground. I just happen to really, really really Not Like You.

Then there's of course the 'amusing' crack about having been abused by my father. The sheer stupidity of that comment aside, I guess he doesn't live in a country where <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,224326-412,00.shtml"> lynch mobs</a> run through the streets murdering pedophiles.

I wasn't trying to be amusing, so I'm glad I've succeeded. Rather, I find it amazing how you have followed my posting so closely yet seemingly cannot understand the 'ad hominem attacks' on Maggie, which she has made a HISTORY of dishing out - typographical errors beware! You obviously are not interested in seeing the truth, so I won't bother wasting my energy to reply to you. This post, by the way, is to clear it up for everyone else.

His points were also entertaining in themselves: he will ignore you because he agrees with what you say yet finds you frustrating to argue with. Which is why he threw a profanity-laden fit over in the thread regarding drugs and alcohol.

No. I will ignore Maggie (was actually considering taking her off the ignore list since I've calmed down) because she pushes my buttons. I don't need that every day. Joann is quite irritating enough, thank you very much.

As for the profanity thing, I think Jen addressed it well enough. Words are used to express ideas. Some words have stronger emotional impact than others. Hence, their usage. If you don't like it, you could always get Surf Watch.

It's just sad to see the mental maturity of a twelve-year old express itself in such aggression. Oh well. I guess there's always his 'weblog' where he posts about how pimped his many computers are, and how ordering pizza is great, and how he likes his ass to be clean. (no, really)

Who is this targeted at? We already know that Maggie has read it. Ah, yes. I see. Ad hominem attacks.

If you don't like the weblog, don't read it. Seriously. Please, don't. It's not worth your time.

Luckily, he can't read any of this, though, otherwise I'd ask him why he again completely ignored the refutation of his points, just to go on about Maggie, and about how long my postings are.

Unfortunately, I said "I think I'll..." and as we all know, thinking and doing are two separate things. I thought I'd read your reply first. I now realize this to have been a waste of my time, but no matter.

I didn't ignore the refutation of my points - there was no refutation and there were no "points". There was a point, which is apparently completely lost on you. That point, for the interested, is that Maggie has repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks on those she's arguing with, yet when confronted with this, goes "oh well". She then, of course, preaches about how our words here are what everyone else has to judge us by. The level of hypocrisy I see in this is astounding, and I know for a fact that I'm not alone. No matter. You choose to see that as invalid simply because I use "swear words" or because I myself have resorted to an ad hominem attack on someone who has a history of ad hominem attacks. It doesn't occur to you that I'm perfectly aware of what I'm doing. That's okay. But that's why it happened.

I'm not going to respond to the last part of your comment, as it's filled with personal attacks and I'd have to call you a fuckface, but I won't do that, because I'm not responding to that part.

[Edit - Fixing typos is fun! s/I've/I'd/]

Originally posted by dhamsaic

I also see it as (dun dun dun!) wholly fucking irrelevant (ain't that a humdinger!), since this isn't a BBS or Usenet.

Yeah, it shows . Although the Cellar indeed used to be a BBS and had a USENET feed.

I liked it better then. People were making a significant expenditure of effort to be here then, and tended to treat the Commons a little better; applying a bit more thought and care to their postings here then than they do now. With a connect time limit (yes, there used to be one), there was less blather and mouth-foaming and more thoughtful content.

*and the antagonistic, arrogant, holier than thou bitch of the year award goes to....MaggieL!!!*
welcome to a second ignorelist, your petty personal attacks were spoiling otherwise pleasent threads.

Jaguar, since you misspelled "pleasant", your point is non-existant. Please go do your homework. :P

I've done 6 hours today, and put in on average, 13 hours a day (of schoolwork) this week - bite me.

You folks are amusing to me.

When people take me on directly, with ad hominem attacks, I merely assume they are right and suffer silently with depression as their words sink into my soul, burning holes in it.

The wife is a lurker here, you know, but she won't sign up cos she knows - and she is right - that she faces the possibility of getting whomped on with the first mistake. No mistake is needed in some places, but here we are at least that forgiving.

It scarecely matters if each and every discussion degenerates into an unappealing flame-fest. Nobody wants to sign up for that. If you feel you are "fighting" for a group that is appealing to you personally, you probably won't get it in the end.

Yknow, I don't do anything to encourage or discourage a particular kind of chatter; I don't kick people off, or delete posts, or edit people, or have lists of elites, etc. (Other than the three rules.) So appealing to me won't help. You people just have to work it out amongst yourselves.

I would suggest, for starters, that you take a step back and acknowledge how amazing it is that we get to share anything at all. How somehow we've been given something amazing and wondrous - the chance to share a few experiences with each other, across miles and miles of distance. It's just a few minutes of sharing every day. You want to squander that with pettiness and squabbling? Be my guest, but you're only hurting yourselves.

I don't. Which is why I came to a decision last night.

I will ignore the people that bring out the worst in me, and hope that those whom I bring out the worst in will ignore me.

It was either that or quitting the Cellar, and I was about ten seconds away from writing an email explaining my decision and just quietly slipping off the Cellar. But a post from jaguar, of all people, made me decide to stay.

Time is too precious to waste arguing. The great things about the Cellar are too precious to be overshadowed by the arguing.